For the ref bashers...

[wasps]

Who are the good refs these days?

Whenever we have a thread highlighting the officials of an upcoming game, it's nearly always full of negative comments regarding the referee and/ or the officiating team.

Whenever we have a game where we lose, the post mortem always includes comments regarding the poor officiating, albeit often stating that it had no effect on the game

When we win games, there's typical still comments that we won despite the officiating.

This happens whether it's Wayne Barnes it CMK.


So, are there any refs that are actually liked?
Have there actually been any good refereeing performances in recent memory.

[HDAWG]

I go into every game with skepticism of officiating because the rules and laws are way too complicated. There's such a grey area with interpretation that I cannot criticise the ref often. Wales England being an example of the exception for getting massive decisions completely wrong. Or any of Craig Joubert's matches.

[hookender]

I think I’ve become more critical of refs,particularly wasps games since lockdown. When I’ve been at grounds tend not to question decisions as ref tends to be nearer incident than me! Plus keeping an eye on wider game anyway. By the time travelled home not really bothered about watching replay and tended to watch highlights which wouldn’t show contentious reffing anyway. As it would be mainly away games I  saw on tv ,just assumed home side would get rub of green anyway.

 Seeing so many games on tv ,especially last and present season along with internationals,with the close ups and replays ,plus commentators’input’ has probably not helped.

 It’s just own perception of how a game has gone , don’t remember much talk about refs last summer/autumn. And it only takes one bad decision by a ref to make you remember him.

 

[mike909]

My view of reffing is based on watching SH games from both Mitre 10 in NZ and SR games. The key issue that's made a difference to the games is the officiating of Laws 14 and 15, the tackle and ruck.

If applied per how World rugby describe on their website and more like in those SH last summer - then not only would the breakdown be safer, the ball would emerge more quickly and the game would reward positive play.

We were expecting such a move (I was assured online...) in the NH, and yet this area is still where it seems most of my officiating angst originates. It is a mess, the tackle Laws, especially "release" and "roll" are rarely imposed, and rucks are a too often a free for all that is far from the Laws as written.

The turnover can only occur a) if the defender is first to the tackle, on feet and then picks up the ball (which was released by tackled player) or b) it's a ruck and the defending side pushes the opposition off the ball, no hands allowed.

Worth a read of the WR site - it rather surprised me....as to what the Laws prescribe......

[wasps]

Mike
I believe the problem is that if the breakdown favours the defending side, then attacking teams will attempt avoid the breakdown more. Unfortunately that's not necessarily done by offloading, but more likely by kicking.

If the breakdown favours the attacking team, that may reduce kicking to some degree, but will mean multiple phases of forward pods.
This is not only seen as boring, but it's probably one of the more dangerous areas of the game.



Alterations to the breakdown typically result in unforeseen consequences, and it's quite common for NH teams to look for different solutions to SH teams.

I suspect that a cleaner ruck would result in the defending teams gaining more of an edge over the attacking teams.
Rather than the faster, safer game, it's probably more likely to result in more of a kickfest

[RogerE]

What amazes me is the number of decisions I see the ref get wrong at the Ricoh, but they manage to get them correct when I watch the match again on the TV.

[jamestaylor002]

Alterations to the breakdown typically result in unforeseen consequences, and it's quite common for NH teams to look for different solutions to SH teams.

I imagine this is probably due to a difference in approach to the game.
I remember in an interview with Lima where he said that the NH treat the game as a business and the SH just want to play the game - or words to that effect. So, I would hazard a guess that NH teams look for different solutions as that might mean more wins and (if it goes right) premiership final / European Cup wins and that means more revenue.

Brings it slightly off topic but I imagine that's why the RFU and other NH unions are relatively richer than their SH counterparts (covid aside).

[mike909]

Wasps - I agree to some extent. The reason England kick in their own half especially, is partly down to the risk of penalty, in possession, at the breakdown.

I think looking at SH rugby - and it may be cultural? - with the attacking side advantaged - so long as they comply with the Laws, the faster ball has meant more ball in hand (my observation - not researched the stats...) whereas the mess in the Prem games (who really knows what the ref is going to do) means more "chancing it".

In our game - at 8m15s or there abouts, we are penalised for "off feet" when that clearly wasn't the case - and Mike Le B was penalised for being slow away, and exactly the same issue not a problem in other breakdowns

It also means there is an incentive to "clear out" which accentuates the risk to defenders (physically) and the risk to attackers (cards). The attackers' coaches would want them to clear out - something that isn't really "a thing" in the Laws. Either it's a ruck or it's a tackle of player in possession - usual Laws apply. But if the officiating allows hands on competition in a ruck - it will continue.

However - yes - probably a NH/SH thing - but they really need to try apply the Laws as written first, for me - then have a think.

[Shugs]

Yes, it's a source of constant amazement to me. We can have a cohesive, collective push to get rid of high tackles and head contact but we can't do the same regards the breakdown. It's a complete lottery. In fact as described in the laws you hardly ever see a turnover of that description - more a penalty for holding on. It's blatantly not refereed to the laws. Anywhere else in the game it wouldn't wash.

[hookender]

Wasps - I agree to some extent. The reason England kick in their own half especially, is partly down to the risk of penalty, in possession, at the breakdown.

I think looking at SH rugby - and it may be cultural? - with the attacking side advantaged - so long as they comply with the Laws, the faster ball has meant more ball in hand (my observation - not researched the stats...) whereas the mess in the Prem games (who really knows what the ref is going to do) means more "chancing it".

In our game - at 8m15s or there abouts, we are penalised for "off feet" when that clearly wasn't the case - and Mike Le B was penalised for being slow away, and exactly the same issue not a problem in other breakdowns

It also means there is an incentive to "clear out" which accentuates the risk to defenders (physically) and the risk to attackers (cards). The attackers' coaches would want them to clear out - something that isn't really "a thing" in the Laws. Either it's a ruck or it's a tackle of player in possession - usual Laws apply. But if the officiating allows hands on competition in a ruck - it will continue.

However - yes - probably a NH/SH thing - but they really need to try apply the Laws as written first, for me - then have a think.

I guess the whistle being blown, or not- for not rolling away , slow to move, even off feet ( not diving in) is down to whether the ref thinks or sees that the nine can get the ball , because we don’t want to see stoppages. Unfortunately if a player doesn’t get pinged the first time he thinks ref is ok with it .

So apply laws from the start- and refs to stop keep warning  after first shout about possible infringement.

[InBetweenWasp]

I can definitely see, and largely agree with, the argument about the complexity of the rules.

Aren't they deliberately interpreted, or dealt with differently in various parts of the world?

For example, a common complaint by Prem teams in Europe is that the French Refs don't communicate during the breakdown, whereas in the Prem players are constantly being told to roll away, use it, or not to compete if they're illegal.

It's a good call, wasps.  In the good old days when we were enjoying games at the stadium, there'd often be a collective sigh when discussing who the ref was for the game - before it had even kicked off.

I find myself feeling more critical of the Ref watching games in person than on the TV - The latter gives more context and lately some pretty clear comms from the Ref. 

It does feel like ref-bashing before, during and after games has crept in as a habit, rather than a reaction.  Fortunately, it's nothing like Football.  When Barnesy, or Owens explains things on Podcasts, or as pundits, what they say often makes complete sense.  I sometimes wonder whether the Ref's should be available for post-match interviews (depending on whether the broadcaster wants to interview them or not).

[hookender]

Whilst it sounds a good idea to have ref speak after a game, would he really about any issues that occurred? Remember they ,allegedly, have a debrief in the week ,so wouldn’t want to speak before that?

 If it was to happen ref association might coach them to be as bland as possible.

[Brandnewtorugby]

I always find the ref explanation in American football very clear, regardless of whether I agree. It's as if they have a formula for explaining the decision.

[andermt]

I find the ref communication fustrating.

If we take the game on Sunday.

Luke Pearce is one of the better ones on the 'use it' calls, and has penalised players in the past but at times yesterday he was telling them to use it, then hurrying them up afterwards, once you call use it, any hurry up should be a penalty.

The other one, he told the Quins players to leave it in a ruck, the ball then popped out on the Quins side, obviously illegally as he had already told them to leave it, but they got the turn-over and the match continued without a penalty. (They did look at one later via TMO).

If the refs are going to make these statements and calls they need to be accurate and consistent.

[Mellie]

I hate what has become termed the clearout. It used to be players flying off their feet like an exorcet which, fortunately,  is being penalised now after being prevalent, especially by Exeter. Always illegal and dangerous.

Now you get players taking a run at a static pile of bodies and targeting an opposition player, often with the shoulder, or judo throwing a potential jackler to the floor where they end up as well. Also both illegal and dangerous, but allowed by refs most of the time.

Sale got a yellow against Falcons when their prop was spotted by the TMO (and me) doing a breakdown shoulder charge. They were looking at potential head contact though but, since there was none, awarded a yellow. For safety reasons I'd like this practice to be a straight red regardless of head contact to stamp it out and prevent head contact even happening.

As defined in the laws, a ruck requires binding and is a pushing contest. No hitting the opposition or pulling allowed.